SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1988 MarsdenLR 818

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)

SHANKAR, J

SUNGEI WAY LEASING SDN BHD
versus
LIAN SENG PROPERTIES SDN BHD

CIVIL SUIT NO C3889 OF 1986

Decided On : 03-05-88

Advocates:
Lee Min Choon for the plaintiffs.
Yeoh Siok Kee (Jonathan Puthucheary with him) for the defendants.
Vijaya Kumar for the interveners.
Solicitors: Lee Min Choon & Co; Wang Kuo Shing & Co; Albar Zulkifly & Yap.

Shankar J

Along Jalan Bukit Bintang Kuala Lumpur is a well-known commercial/residential complex described as KL Plaza. This complex is built on a block of land which is made up of the land comprised in the documents of title CT No 17922 up to CT 17960 (inclusive) and CT No 13554 up to CT 13557 (inclusive). This land belonged to Lian Seng Properties Sdn Bhd ('Lian Seng'), the first defendant herein. To finance the development Lian Seng borrowed M$52m from Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd and Bumiputra Merchant Bankers Bhd ('the bankers'). Twenty five million dollars of the loan was secured by two charges under the National Land Code both dated 14 May 1980. These two charges were in favour of Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd. A further charge was executed over the land aforesaid on 6 June 1983 for $37m in favour of Bumiputra Merchant Bankers Bhd. The bankers therefore financed the entire building of the complex.

Central air-conditioning is an integral facility of this kind of complex. Just after mid-1985 four units of centrifugal liquid chillers together with condenser water pump-sets, cooling towers and condenser water pump-sets, air-handling units and a variety of ancillary equipment including control panels air-conditioning switchboards, pipes, ducts work etc were installed in the complex. I refer hereinafter to all these equipment collectively as the air-conditioning equipment. This air-conditioning equipment costs about $2.28m. It was the subject of a written lease agreement between Lian Seng and the plaintiffs. The second, third and fourth defendants were guarantors under the agreement but the issue of their liability does not concern us in this judgment.

The character of the equipment, however, is very material because the crux of the dispute with which this judgment is concerned relates to the issue as to whether the equipment was the kind of fixture which became a part of the land by virtue of its being affixed thereto.

Article 10 of the lease agreement provided as follows:

Article 10 (Equipment not to be affixed to premises)

(1) Without the lessor's writtten consent the lessee shall not affix, secure, fasten, anchor or in any way attach the equipment to the premises in which the equipment is kept and used or to any immovable property.

(2) If the equipment shall be affixed, attached or secured to the land or premises of which the lessee is owner or has an estate or interest other than as lessee the equipment shall be deemed not to be fixtures and may be removed by the lessor at any time in accordance with the provisions hereof and the lessor shall be entitled to enter upon such land or premises at any time for such purpose and shall not be liable in respect of loss damage or otherwise arising in respect of such entry or such removal.

(3) In the event that the lessee seeks the lessor's consent referred to in the preceeding paragraph of this article, the lessee shall submit a written consent or a certificate from the owner or landlord of such premises or immovable property to the effect that such owner or landlord agrees not to treat the equipment as a fixture or fitting forming a part of such premises or immovable property and that the lessor shall have the same rights of entry and removal as in sub-cl (2) hereof set forth and as between the lessor and the lessee the equipment hereby leased shall remain personal property and shall continue in the ownership of the lessor notwithstanding that the same may have been affixed to any land or building as aforesaid. The lessee shall be responsible for any damage caused to any such land or building by the affixing of the equipment thereto or the removal of the equipment therefrom (whether such affixing or removal be effected by the lessor or the lessee) and shall indemnify the lessor against any claim made in respect of such damage.

(4) If such land or premises is or becomes the subject of a charge the lessee without any request required from the lessor will obtain the written acknowledgem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top